T1B

Posted: **Wed Oct 16, 2019 7:10 am**

Despite 5 Videos Showing Him Having Sex With a Child

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop-a ... -evidence/

The ex-NYPD Police Officer Raul Olmeda was accused of recording his sexual encounters with the 15-year-old girl on at least five occasions. He was confronted with these videos by investigators and the teen admitted to the acts. These facts were indisputable, yet Olmeda was acquitted.

Instead of facing the time in prison for the felony rape charges, Olmeda was convicted of two petty misdemeanors of official misconduct and witness tampering. The witness tampering stems from the fact that Olmeda told the girl not to testify against him in court. The official misconduct charge was brought on after this cop was caught accessing NYPD computers to see what evidence internal affairs had against him.

Incredibly, he was only found guilty of the very charges which allowed him to silence his victim and give him an upper hand during the trial. It is utter insanity. The two misdemeanors barely carry up to a year in jail.

Even more insane is the fact that his attorney had the audacity to refer to Olmeda as a “victim.” You really cannot make this up.

“From the start, Mr. Olmeda was willing to take responsibility for his actions, but he was not willing to plead guilty to charges where he was the victim of a shakedown,” said Peter Brill, Olmeda’s lawyer. “We thank the jury for being able to tell the difference.”

Blue Lives Matter.

Posted: **Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:43 am**

I see a charge of felony rape. I do not see statutory rape.

Could this be a case of the DA reaching too far?

Posted: **Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:44 am**

smackaholic wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:43 am I see a charge of felony rape. I do not see statutory rape.

Could this be a case of the DA reaching too far?

Is there a JUBM you won't make pathetic excuses for?

Posted: **Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:45 am**

FiatLux wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2019 7:10 am Despite 5 Videos Showing Him Having Sex With a Child

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/cop-a ... -evidence/

The ex-NYPD Police Officer Raul Olmeda was accused of recording his sexual encounters with the 15-year-old girl on at least five occasions. He was confronted with these videos by investigators and the teen admitted to the acts. These facts were indisputable, yet Olmeda was acquitted.

Instead of facing the time in prison for the felony rape charges, Olmeda was convicted of two petty misdemeanors of official misconduct and witness tampering. The witness tampering stems from the fact that Olmeda told the girl not to testify against him in court. The official misconduct charge was brought on after this cop was caught accessing NYPD computers to see what evidence internal affairs had against him.

Incredibly, he was only found guilty of the very charges which allowed him to silence his victim and give him an upper hand during the trial. It is utter insanity. The two misdemeanors barely carry up to a year in jail.

Even more insane is the fact that his attorney had the audacity to refer to Olmeda as a “victim.” You really cannot make this up.

“From the start, Mr. Olmeda was willing to take responsibility for his actions, but he was not willing to plead guilty to charges where he was the victim of a shakedown,” said Peter Brill, Olmeda’s lawyer. “We thank the jury for being able to tell the difference.”

Blue Lives Matter.

Was he on duty during these rapes ERRRRRR sexual encounters?

Sincerely,
Schmickity

Posted: **Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:27 pm**

smackaholic wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:43 am I see a charge of felony rape. I do not see statutory rape.

Could this be a case of the DA reaching too far?

Posted: **Wed Oct 16, 2019 6:51 pm**

Ever notice when someone tries to hold a cop accountable for a summary extrajudicial killing, suckaholic whines about going too far?

Posted: **Wed Oct 16, 2019 7:15 pm**

He is a jackboot licking tard.

Posted: **Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:40 pm**

Kierland wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2019 7:15 pm He is a jackboot licking tard.

I guess the only measure of intelligence you can ascribe to 'holic is that he's been smart enough in his life to aim for the middle, cultivate straight C's and stick to the script. He's the guy on the outer edge of the circle yelling "Fight! Fight! Fight!" along with all the other forgettable nobodys.

If he was a meal, he'd be a generic hamburger with mustard and ketchup, french fries and a medium sized Diet Coke.

Posted: **Wed Oct 16, 2019 8:54 pm**

I am not defending anyone, you fukking morons. I asked an honest question.

Are any of you fukking idiots capable of an honest answer?

I guess I should ask a real lawyer.

Was this guy charged with rape when he should have been charged with statutory rape, or whatever it is called in legalese?

He did not forcibly rape this "child". He paid a hooker for her services. He did know she was underaged, by his own admission. He is guilty of solicitation and whatever the term is for solicitation from a minor. Of course, the story which has a very obvious cop hating bias, prefers the term child, as it brings to mind a 7 year old.

Before you go all MVSpedo on me, I am not condoning sex with 15 year olds, but it is different from sex with a pre-pubescent child.

As for his being a cop, it seems to me to be irrelevant, other than when he used that position in attempting to cover this up and he was found guilty in this regard. So much for his using his position as a cop to sweep this under the rug. If that were in play, he'd have walked on all count.

Posted: **Wed Oct 16, 2019 10:04 pm**

Sounds like the DA made a royal fuckup here. That or the facts aren’t as cut and dry as laid out here. However, given the side of the story we see here it sure sounds like this cop should be doing far more time.

What the hell did the jury see or hear?

Posted: **Wed Oct 16, 2019 10:56 pm**

I suspect you are right lefty. My guess is the DA did fukk up by overcharging. I am far from a legal expert, but I read felony rape to mean what most people think of as "rape", a forceful sex act with an unwilling victim.

If this is the case, the jury got it right and that DA should be shitcanned. That former cop is a POS. He should do whatever the sentence is for statutory rape, but no more.

Posted: **Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:26 pm**

Screw_Michigan wrote: ↑Wed Oct 16, 2019 11:45 am
Was he on duty during these rapes ERRRRRR sexual encounters?

Sincerely,
Schmickity

It's a good question. Was he on duty? Was the 15 year old trafficked, and therefore coerced? Was she her own pimp. or eas someone else attempying to blackmail Olmeda through her? Will this figure -- somehow someway -- into the Epstein mess still lurching forward?

Posted: **Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:31 pm**

No it’s not a good question you pedophilic apologist.

Posted: **Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:35 pm**

Kierland wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:31 pm No it’s not a good question you pedophilic apologist.

Good morning --- TVO? It is a good question. Taping a prostitute while on the job is theft of resources and time, regardless of the prostitute's age.

He's a cop who makes poor judgements. Where will he end up now?

Posted: **Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:42 pm**

That’s not how police work works, but you go ahead and distract from the Pedo and shine the light on fraud.

Posted: **Mon Oct 21, 2019 4:22 pm**

Kierland wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 3:42 pm That’s not how police work works, but you go ahead and distract from the Pedo and shine the light on fraud.

I don't know how police work works. Please confirm or correct: all time, is time on the clock for police officers?

Posted: **Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:02 pm**

Most cops are hourly employees, that are always cops even if they are not getting paid.

Posted: **Mon Oct 21, 2019 7:40 pm**

Kierland wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 5:02 pm Most cops are hourly employees, that are always cops even if they are not getting paid.

He misused company time and company resources to access information he was not supposed to have. He threatened the underaged sex trafficking victim not to testify against him. Where was the shakedown?

Prostitition is illegal, and she was not of age to consent to being filmed. Did he have her sign a model contract?

Is he still going to be a cop after fucking over Internal Affairs?

Posted: **Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:40 pm**

He has already been shitcanned/quit.

The only unanswered question I have, which the diminutive lawyer won’t answer because he’s too busy hurling insults, if whether or not this was a case of overcharging?

Rape, IMO is a forced sex act.

Statutory rape, is sex with a minor.

Having sex with a 15 year old hooker is the latter.

Pedophilia, which seems to be the other thing the little fella is obsessed with, is sex with a pre-pubescent child.

My guess is there wasn’t a damn thing pre-pubescent about this young lady.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted: **Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:43 pm**

One other thing.

If prostitution was legal, there’s a pretty fair chance this sort of thing is avoided.

Why take the risk of banging a 15 year old definitely illegal hooker, when there are plenty of legal 18 year olds, who I am sure would have no problem wearing pigtails and pretending to be 15.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Posted: **Tue Oct 22, 2019 6:24 pm**

smackaholic wrote: ↑Mon Oct 21, 2019 8:43 pm One other thing.

If prostitution was legal, there’s a pretty fair chance this sort of thing is avoided.

Why take the risk of banging a 15 year old definitely illegal hooker, when there are plenty of legal 18 year olds, who I am sure would have no problem wearing pigtails and pretending to be 15.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Does a lot more than avoids it, which is why it should be legalized, you're right. If pornography were illegal, there would be more Traci Lords situations in mainstream porn.

It should be legalized before the drugs Mexico wants decriminalized.

Posted: **Wed Oct 23, 2019 3:24 pm**

No they should be legalized at the same time, yesterday.

Posted: **Wed Oct 23, 2019 5:10 pm**

It seems a bit too simple to think legalizing prostitution ends human trafficking. It would seem demand for prostitution would increase if legal and therefore the supply would need to increase as well. While some will choose to enter the "field" since it would be legal, I don't see the supply meeting the demand.

Posted: **Wed Oct 23, 2019 6:19 pm**

schmick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 5:46 pm Prostitution is legal, it's called marriage. The assholes in the family courts fight to keep the honest hookers, those who give you the price up front, on the wrong side of the law because they don't benefit and get paid by their negotiations of price.

Nailed it.

Posted: **Wed Oct 23, 2019 10:22 pm**

schmick wrote: ↑Wed Oct 23, 2019 5:46 pm Prostitution is legal, it's called marriage. The assholes in the family courts fight to keep the honest hookers, those who give you the price up front, on the wrong side of the law because they don't benefit and get paid by their negotiations of price.

Why should it be illegal to ask for money for something that is legal to give away for free?

Sex with a 15 year old is sex with a minor, illegal in this country. The majority of people guilty of phishers in the states are Latino as the age of consent in countries like Mexico can be as low as 12. Liberals are to blame for this as they seem to welcome people from those shit hole countries in to our country and seem to encourage these people to hold on to their culture, language and customs.

Pedos are people with a sexual disorder, like transsexuals, where they are attracted to prepubescent children. People with this disorder should be castrated, lobotomized and forced to pick produce for the remainder of their existence.
Unless this 15 year old had some sort of retardation, natural or pharmaceutical, that halted her development, she would have been about 4 or 5 years beyond the onset of puberty.

I'm betting this coo was latino....or an R Kelly fan

Are you clinically insane or just a regular crazy lying racist POS?

T1B

Cop Acquitted for Rape...

Cop Acquitted for Rape...

Re: Cop Acquitted for Rape...

Re: Cop Acquitted for Rape...

Re: Cop Acquitted for Rape...

Re: Cop Acquitted for Rape...

Re: Cop Acquitted for Rape...

Re: Cop Acquitted for Rape...

Re: Cop Acquitted for Rape...

Re: Cop Acquitted for Rape...

Re: Cop Acquitted for Rape...

Re: Cop Acquitted for Rape...

Re: Cop Acquitted for Rape...

Re: Cop Acquitted for Rape...

Re: Cop Acquitted for Rape...

Re: Cop Acquitted for Rape...

Re: Cop Acquitted for Rape...

Re: Cop Acquitted for Rape...

Re: Cop Acquitted for Rape...

Re: Cop Acquitted for Rape...

Re: Cop Acquitted for Rape...

Re: Cop Acquitted for Rape...

Re: Cop Acquitted for Rape...

Re: Cop Acquitted for Rape...

Re: Cop Acquitted for Rape...

Re: Cop Acquitted for Rape...